Monday, January 22, 2024

Long-term prairie drought raises concerns over groundwater levels

By Bob Weber The Canadian Press
Posted January 21, 2024




The Prairie View trail near Barrier Lake in Kananaskis Country, Alta., i


In the middle of an Alberta mountain playground, adjacent to a popular ski resort, there’s a well sunk into the bedrock that has John Pomeroy worried.


The Marmot Creek well in Kananaskis Country has been there for generations, says the University of Saskatchewan water scientist. It’s one of the few groundwater monitoring wells that Alberta has in the mountains. Away from any human influence, it’s a good indicator of what’s actually happening.

“The lowest water levels are all in the last seven years and the levels are much lower now than they were in the ’70s and ’80s,” Pomeroy said.

“It’ll be a climate signal that we’re seeing.”

As predicted by climate change models, drought is desiccating the Prairies, especially southern Alberta. The province has already warned municipalities to plan for another dry summer, is preparing help for farmers and aims to mobilize firefighting teams early.

But those measures address surface water. About 600,000 Albertans depend on groundwater, and scientists and rural officials say not enough is known about the effects years of drought have had on the unseen flows beneath our feet.

“We have to make sure we’re managing groundwater and surface water as a common resource,” said Pomeroy. “If we deplete one, we’re depleting the other.”

So far, the signals are mixed. Alberta maintains a network of more than 200 monitoring wells across the province and many show water levels that are stable or even increasing.

Masaki Hayashi, a University of Calgary hydrologist, pointed to wells in Rocky View County outside Calgary, home to 40,000 people.
Get the latest Edmonton news. Sent to your email, every day.

“It’s been another year of drought,” he said. “Now these wells are hitting all-time lows.”

Long-term trends are ambiguous, he said. Precipitation cycles between wet years and dry.

But trends are leaning toward the latter. Four dry years, 2015-18, were followed by a couple of wet ones. Precipitation data at the Calgary airport shows the last three have been dry again.

Creeks, rivers and lakes are all connected and what seeps up must first soak down.

“Unless you have this recharge from time to time, (levels) are going to keep going down,” Hayashi said.

Paul McLauchlin, president of Rural Municipalities of Alberta and an environmental scientist, said his members are increasingly concerned about the impact dry year after dry year is having on their water.

“It’s a critically important resource that we do not know much about,” McLauchlin said.

“We’re in a 50-year drought, subsurface. Even if we get Snowmageddon, it is not recharging the deficit that we’re going to see.”

Some wells in his area near Ponoka have already dried up, he said.

McLauchlin said Alberta does a good job monitoring the state of groundwater, but falls down when it comes to understanding the resource.

“Do we have enough understanding of that surface connect? Water could take 20 years to make it to surface from ground or it could take 1,000 years, depending on the area,” he said.

“We just don’t have the data to show that.”

Alberta Environment spokesman Tom McMillan said the province takes groundwater concerns seriously.

“Due to drought conditions, Alberta is increasing groundwater monitoring to help ensure reliable access to safe drinking water in rural communities,” he said in an email. “We will be downloading increased data this spring to better track water levels and adding near real-time groundwater level monitoring equipment to more wells throughout the province.”

Well owners are encouraged to monitor water levels, said McMillan. The province is increasing the number of workshops available to help people with that work.

“When it comes to water, we’re all in it together,” he said.

Pomeroy is reluctant to to generalize about what’s happening to Alberta aquifers.

Some are at their lowest levels ever, some are increasing. The lag time between when the water falls and when it seeps into pore space in the rocks make predictions harder.

But trends are emerging, he said.

“In parts of Alberta where there’s been drought for four or five years, we’re seeing groundwater levels drop quite substantially.

“It’s something we need to keep an eye on.”


Alberta braces for possible water shortages amid historic droughts

ICYMI
You can now order all kinds of medical tests online. Our research shows this is (mostly) a bad idea


THE CONVERSATION
Published: January 21, 2024 


Many of us have done countless rapid antigen tests (RATs) over the course of the pandemic. Testing ourselves at home has become second nature.

But there’s also a growing worldwide market in medical tests sold online directly to the public. These are “direct-to-consumer” tests, and you can access them without seeing a doctor.

While this might sound convenient, the benefits to most consumers are questionable, as we discovered in a recent study.

Read more: Five warning signs of overdiagnosis

Join thousands of Canadians who subscribe to free evidence-based news.Get newsletter
What are direct-to-consumer tests?

Let’s start with what they’re not. We’re not talking about patients who are diagnosed with a condition, and use tests to monitor themselves (for example, finger-prick testing to monitor blood sugar levels for people with diabetes).

We’re also not talking about home testing kits used for population screening, such as RATs for COVID, or the “poo tests” sent to people aged 50 and over for bowel cancer screening.

Direct-to-consumer tests are products marketed to anyone who is willing to pay, without going through their GP. They can include hormone profiling tests, tests for thyroid disease and food sensitivity tests, among many others.

Some direct-to-consumer tests allow you to complete the test at home, while self-collected lab tests give you the equipment to collect a sample, which you then send to a lab. You can now also buy pathology requests for a lab directly from a company without seeing a doctor.
We’ve all become accustomed to RATs during the pandemic.


What we did in our study

We searched (via Google) for direct-to-consumer products advertised for sale online in Australia between June and December 2021. We then assessed whether each test was likely to provide benefits to those who use them based on scientific literature published about the tests, and any recommendations either for or against their use from professional medical organisations.

We identified 103 types of tests and 484 individual products ranging in price from A$12.99 to A$1,947.

We concluded only 11% of these tests were likely to benefit most consumers. These included tests for STIs, where social stigma can sometimes discourage people from testing at a clinic.

A further 31% could possibly benefit a person, if they were at higher risk. For example, if a person had symptoms of thyroid disease, a test may benefit them. But the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners does not recommend testing for thyroid disease in people without symptoms because evidence showing benefits of identifying and treating people with early thyroid disease is lacking.

Read more: Cervical, breast, heart, bowel: here’s what women should be getting screened regularly

Some 42% were commercial “health checks” such as hormone and nutritional status tests. Although these are legitimate tests – they may be ordered by a doctor in certain circumstances, or be used in research – they have limited usefulness for consumers.

A test of your hormone or vitamin levels at a particular time can’t do much to help you improve your health, especially because test results change depending on the time of day, month or season you test.

Most worryingly, 17% of the tests were outright “quackery” that wouldn’t be recommended by any mainstream health practitioner. For example, hair analysis for assessing food allergies is unproven and can lead to misdiagnosis and ineffective treatments.

More than half of the tests we looked at didn’t state they offered a pre- or post-test consultation.
Ordering medical tests online probably isn’t a good idea. fizkes/Shutterstock

Products available may change outside the time frame of our study, and direct-to-consumer tests not promoted or directly purchasable online, such as those offered in pharmacies or by commercial health clinics, were not included.

But in Australia, ours is the first and only study we know of mapping the scale and variety of direct-to-consumer tests sold online.

Research from other countries has similarly found a lack of evidence to support the majority of direct-to-consumer tests.
4 questions to ask before you buy a test online

Many direct-to-consumer tests offer limited benefits, and could even lead to harms. Here are four questions you should ask yourself if you’re considering buying a medical test online.

1. If I do this test, could I end up with extra medical appointments or treatments I don’t need?

Doing a test yourself might seem harmless (it’s just information, after all), but unnecessary tests often find issues that would never have caused you problems.

For example, someone taking a diabetes test may find moderately high blood sugar levels see them labelled as “pre-diabetic”. However, this diagnosis has been controversial, regarded by many as making patients out of healthy people, a large number of whom won’t go on to develop diabetes.

2. Would my GP recommend this test?

If you have worrying symptoms or risk factors, your GP can recommend the best tests for you. Tests your GP orders are more likely to be covered by Medicare, so will cost you a lot less than a direct-to-consumer test.

3. Is this a good quality test?

A good quality home self-testing kit should indicate high sensitivity (the proportion of true cases that will be accurately detected) and high specificity (the proportion of people who don’t have the disease who will be accurately ruled out). These figures should ideally be in the high 90s, and clearly printed on the product packaging.

For tests analysed in a lab, check if the lab is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities. Avoid tests sent to overseas labs, where Australian regulators can’t control the quality, or the protection of your sample or personal health information.

4. Do I really need this test?

There are lots of reasons to want information from a test, like peace of mind, or just curiosity. But unless you have clear symptoms and risk factors, you’re probably testing yourself unnecessarily and wasting your money.

Direct-to-consumer tests might seem like a good idea, but in most cases, you’d be better off letting sleeping dogs lie if you feel well, or going to your GP if you have concerns.


Authors
Patti Shih
Senior Lecturer, Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong
Fiona Stanaway
Associate Professor in Clinical Epidemiology, University of Sydney
Katy Bell
Associate Professor in Clinical Epidemiology, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Stacy Carter
Professor and Director, Australian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, University of Wollongong

Disclosure statement

Patti Shih receives funding from NHMRC. She is affiliated with Wiser Healthcare, an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for reducing medical overuse and increasing the sustainability and equity of healthcare.

Fiona Stanaway receives funding from the MRFF.

Katy Bell receives funding from NHMRC and MRFF. She is affiliated with Wiser Healthcare, an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for reducing medical overuse and increasing the sustainability and equity of healthcare.

Stacy Carter receives funding from organisations including NHMRC, ARC, MRFF and NBCF. She is affiliated with Wiser Healthcare, an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for reducing medical overuse and increasing the sustainability and equity of healthcare.
Partners








 

ALBERTA

'Not enough': Experts say maximum AISH benefit still puts recipients below poverty line


The program has seen significant increases over the past two decades, however, the allowance in 2005 was $950.

 In nearly 20 years, the program’s maximum allowance has not doubled with the current amount sitting at $1,863 — nowhere near a livable amount.



Article content

Alberta’s income support program for people with a disability is below the poverty line and not providing Albertans with a living wage, experts said.

Advertisement  

Lindsay Tedds, an associate professor in the department of economics at the University of Calgary, said while the poverty line in Alberta has increased dramatically, the cost of living is also increasing and income needs to match inflation.

“You need a lot of money to live in poverty. I don’t think people really understand how much money it now takes,” said Tedds.

Tedds has done extensive research on income assistance programs across Canada, including temporary assistance programs and disability programs. She said many people do not understand that those living in poverty are the most “disabled of the disabled” and cannot work.

Here is a breakdown of issues those with disabilities face when trying to get on to AISH, the poverty line and the benefit allowance over the years.

What is the maximum allowance and how does it compare to the poverty line?

Statistics Canada’s latest report on the Market Basket Measure, which is based on a specific basket of goods and services representing a “modest” basic standard of living annually for a family of four, puts Edmonton at $55,225 — which comes to $27,885.50 for a single-family household.

The current maximum living allowance for those on the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH) program is $1,863 monthly, which comes to $22,356 annually — $5,529.50 below the poverty line in Edmonton.

In Calgary the basic standard of living for a family of four is slightly above Edmonton at $55,771.

“The living allowance may be reduced if a client and their cohabiting partner receive non-exempt income, or if a client resides in a Government of Alberta group home. Clients who reside in government-owned and operated group homes receive the maximum monthly living allowance, minus the per diem room and board rate,” said the website.

Advertisement 4

While Alberta’s income support for those with disabilities is the highest in Canada, Tedds said it’s clear that the maximum living allowance is “not enough” and even then not everyone will get the highest allowance.

“People are not living their best life.”

How challenging is it to get on to the program?

People who are living on AISH are highly stigmatized, said Tedds. It also doesn’t help that the program is difficult to get on to.

“Just because it’s the highest amount, it’s very hard to get on to. We’re talking about the most disabled of the disabled and that you gotta jump through hoops, it’s very stigmatizing to get on to,” said Tedds.

In a recent article, Postmedia spoke to a nurse practitioner who said AISH rules are creating barriers for patients. She said it is difficult for some of her patients to access doctors to complete medical forms for provincial funding.

Advertisement 5

'I can't sign the medical': Alberta nurse practitioner says AISH rules present barrier for patients


Alberta government again raising AISH, income support and seniors benefits Jan. 1

Only a registered physician can sign off on a key medical report in the application process for AISH.

Linda Wonitoway-Raw works in the health centre on Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation, about 85 km northwest of Edmonton, has been a practising nurse practitioner for 15 years and estimated she’s only seen about 10 patients who should qualify, but the rule is a big barrier for those few who need the vital support.

Tedds said a lack of compassion when it comes to those with disabilities is “horrifying” and she said in order to improve the system, a fundamental mindset change is necessary to first work to de-stigmatize how people view disability to create a more compassionate understanding of what it means to be severely disabled.

Advertisement 6

“It’s horrifying what they say about people on (disability). There’s fundamentally a mindset that the people on these programs are committing fraud, they’re lazy, that they just wanna sit around and do nothing and collect a cheque. I don’t know of anybody who is sitting around and living a good life at $700 a month, these people have lived through significant amounts of trauma,” said Tedds.

“It’s no joke.”

How has AISH allowance changed over the decades?

Heather Barlow, press secretary to the minister of seniors, community and social services, said in a statement to Postmedia that the province indexes the program annually to “keep up pace with inflation” and continue to make improvements to the program.

“On Jan. 1, benefit rates for these financial assistance programs were increased by 4.25 per cent. Emergency benefits are also available 24-hours-a-day for those eligible to help with basic needs like shelter, food, clothing and transportation,” said Barlow.

Advertisement 7

The program has seen significant increases over the past two decades, however, the allowance in 2005 was $950. In nearly 20 years, the program’s maximum allowance has not doubled with the current amount sitting at $1,863 — nowhere near a livable amount.

What is AISH and how did it start?

The program was established in 1979 to help meet the needs of “severely disabled” Albertans. It is meant to serve Albertans who have a permanent disability that limits their ability to earn a living wage by providing a monthly allowance depending on the severity of the disability.

According to data from the provincial government, the total AISH caseload for October 2023 was 75,554 a 4.5 per cent increase from October 2022, which was 69,981.

A review of the program in September 2004 was called for by Clint Dunford, former minister of Alberta Human Resources and Employment, after AISH clients said the benefit was too low and the program was not meeting their needs. The goal of the review was to identify ways to revamp the AISH program to match the needs of recipients “while ensuring the program remains available to those who need it.”

— With files from Lisa Johnson

ctran@postmedia.com

 

U$A

Bipartisan Tax Bill Offers Generous Corporate Tax Relief, Inadequate Poverty Aid

A proposed bill increases the child tax credit, but fails the poorest families. Yet corporations would see a windfall.


The bulk of the Republican side of the Tax Relief Act bargain is dedicated to reaping vast windfalls for corporations, which already dodge taxes with alacrity.

On January 16, congressional leaders announced that a bipartisan agreement had been reached on a far-ranging, $78 billion tax package. The proposed legislation is not only bipartisan but bicameral: It was negotiated between Jason Smith, a Republican representative from Missouri and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, who is a senator chairing the Finance Committee. If passed, the bill will be realized as the Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024 (hereon, the Tax Relief Act).

Alongside a bevy of tax policy adjustments, the Tax Relief Act’s most significant changes include a partial reinstatement of Biden’s COVID-era expanded child tax credit — potentially easing financial burdens for millions of low-income families. The plan also stipulates an increase in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and more funds for disaster relief, including for the chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio, and will be funded by ending the fraud-riddled Employee Retention Tax Credit. With Congress seemingly incapable of passing any social assistance without a lavish ritual offering to placate U.S. corporations, the legislation would also furnish businesses with an array of potentially lucrative new deductions and tax claims, potentially to the tune of hundreds of billions.

A Pittance for the Poorest

Unlike many other developed capitalist countries, the U.S. of the last four decades has grown much more confident in divesting from its children — in the face of all evidence about such investments’ outsized effects on future prosperity, for individuals and nations alike. Nevertheless, public spending on kids has declined, and continues to do so in our neoliberal times, in which the notion of state aid for the needy has become anathema.

A brief exception (that proves the rule) was the deployment of COVID aid programs: though quite modest as social democratic measures go, the pandemic assistance measures produced the largest and fastest decrease in povertyespecially child poverty, that has ever occurred in U.S. history. When those programs ended, poverty reemerged just as rapidly. (Though there is a caveat to these precise numbers, as will be described, this deterioration of social welfare has nevertheless been demonstrably severe.)

The Wyden-Smith legislation is loosely similar to Biden’s own COVID-era child tax credit increase, though the latter was considerably larger, and had other advantages, like mandating that the credit should increase month over month. The Biden policy, passed as part of 2021’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan pandemic assistance bill, was wound down in 2022, returning low-income families to the previous, much less beneficent state of affairs




This Former Child Welfare Investigator Says Family Policing Must Be Abolished
Alan J. Dettlaff once worked for Child Protective Services. What he saw made him realize the system should be abolished.
By Eleanor J. Bader , TRUTHOUT  October 19, 2023

A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) report underscored the tax credit’s load-bearing necessity, in light of the fact that poverty is again climbing in the U.S. after the expiration of the Rescue Plan; the CBPP cited census data indicating that an additional 15.3 million Americans fell below the (already artificially, misleadingly low) poverty line in 2022. This is the inevitable result of the end of COVID aid programs and a spiking cost of living. Per the Census Bureau, the rate leapt from 7.8 percent to 12.4 percent in just a year, a historic uptick.

Even if it’s not quite a systemic change, the enactment of the Wyden-Smith Tax Relief Act — if it survives the congressional floor — would at least make for a real improvement on the penurious post-Rescue Plan conditions. The CBPP projected that the act’s child tax credit increase could “lift as many as 400,000 children above the poverty line and make an additional 3 million children less poor in its first year.”

Under the present policy, parents receive less credit for additional children after their first. The Tax Relief Act increase, by increasing the credit and equalizing it for all of a family’s children, would represent a strong stride toward mending those unjustifiable gaps. Another couple thousand dollars a year can make a practically lifesaving difference to struggling families. However, the act would not eliminate the minimum income eligibility limit, with the result that the poorest families are often the ones receiving the most meager credit.

Professor of economics emerita at Portland State University Mary King is affiliated with the Labor Education & Research Center at the University of Oregon. Speaking with Truthout, she offered some essential caveats. First of all, it must be understood that both the dramatic increases and decreases in poverty, especially child poverty, in recent years have been muddled by statistical factors: King said that “the whole impact of what happened in 2021 [with Biden’s policy] was little bit exaggerated. It was the result of looking with a newer poverty measure that’s only been reported for 12 years now.”

That census metric, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), is assessed differently than the standard official measure. By counting families’ SNAP funds, housing vouchers and other benefits towards income, “it makes kids’ poverty rates look very low,” explained King. “At the same time that child poverty got measured at 5.2 percent with this new SPM rate, it got measured at over 21 percent by our official poverty measure.”

“But,” King continued, “the main problem with the new poverty measure and the old poverty measure is that the U.S. poverty line itself is set so low” relative to developed capitalist nations like many across Europe. No matter the precise standard, a vast amount of poverty (and homelessness) is obscured in official statistics. As a result, our interpretations are in need of recalibration. The real scale of poverty in the U.S. outstrips even the most dismal projections.

The Tax Relief Act, again, comes up short in comparison to the Biden administration’s now-scuttled COVID-era child tax credit increase. For one, it would only increase the child tax credit to $2,000 per child by 2025 — whereas as the Biden COVID program expanded it to $3,600.

The comparison is even less favorable in regards to income limits. “What’s different about this bill is that it [resembles] what the policy has been before and after the Biden intervention — people at the very lowest incomes won’t get this new version of the child tax credit,” King said. “And they aren’t getting it now. But they did get it in 2021 [because of the Biden aid]. That’s the first big difference.”

In short, Biden’s American Rescue Plan had eliminated the income limit. It’s now been restored, to the detriment of the poorest families, and the Tax Relief Act would keep that restoration intact. In that respect, the proposal is a return to a status quo that has left families mired by the millions in bitter poverty.

“Going to [an equal credit] per child is a big improvement in this new [proposal],” King said. But thanks to the income limit, “it still leaves out some of the poorest people, and it’s maybe half the value per child of what the credit was in 2021.”

The Affordable Housing Labyrinth

The secondary social reform in the current version of the legislation is the increase in the existing Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Much like the case of the child tax credit, a COVID-era increase in the LIHTC that had mandated an increase of 12.5 percent over the previous 9 percent would be allowed to expire in 2021; the newly proposed legislation would restore that increase through 2025. Wyden claimed in a statement that “the improvements this plan makes to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit will build more than 200,000 new affordable housing units.” If so, it would be through indirect and roundabout means: by incentivizing, ostensibly, affordable construction.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) describes the LIHTC as “the most important resource for creating affordable housing in the United States today.” King explained that these credits “are a part of our really absurdly overcomplicated way of providing affordable housing. In the 1980s, under Reagan, HUD said they were getting out of the housing business. And they did. They quit creating publicly owned, permanently affordable housing — which is what we need to have. And they shifted us towards this privatized system, where you give these tax credits out to people who can sell them in order to get funding to build. It’s a way of further reducing corporate taxes and it makes up a backwards way of funding affordable housing — which is also so complicated.”

People who want to develop affordable housing must find all kinds of funding sources with burdensome requirements. “There’s a tremendous administrative headache, too,” said King. “It’s just so complex that tremendous energy, time and people power go into pulling together the financing to make something happen.” The proposed LIHTC increase “sweetens the deal, by giving [potential affordable developers] access to a little more funding.” But this whole privatized system, she added, “is a terrible way to do affordable housing. And we’d do much better if we would just put public resources straight into owning, leasing and renovating housing.”

The Tax Relief Act also contains an increase in disaster relief funding, including for the East Palestine derailment. The bill also specifies a funding mechanism for its projected $78-80 billion in costs: It will alter “the administration and enforcement of the Employee Retention Credit,” a March 2020 measure that was intended to “help certain businesses continue to meet payroll obligations amid lower consumer demand.” The Tax Relief Act would delimit claiming the credit and strengthen IRS enforcement — evidently necessary, as the program had grown rife with fraud.

Paying the Corporate Tribute

Speaking of which, the bulk of the Republican side of the Tax Relief Act bargain is dedicated to reaping vast windfalls for corporations, which, of course, already dodge taxes with alacrity. For instance, the legislation would make it easier for businesses to file for extensive deductions, both for the near future and grandfathering in past years. That retroactive aspect seems rather remarkable: Businesses would be empowered to refile previous returns, raking in deductions from past years — back when they didn’t exist.

Defenders of that aspect would likely point to the fact that a similar maneuver is also technically available to some families who receive the child care credit, King points out. But realistically, businesses with loophole specialist tax attorneys are going to be better positioned to profit from this capability than overworked single moms, if the latter even learn that it exists, already an unlikely prospect.

“The corporate tax cuts pile onto what the Trump tax cuts already did,” commented King. They allow businesses to “write off research and development, and depreciation of stuff, even when it’s still in its useful life. And, they let you take it all off in a year, rather than spreading it out over five or 15. They’re really front-loading tax deductions for corporations.… It’s a way of shoveling wealth to the top.”

Imbalanced Priorities

Though their stated aim is to pass the bill before tax filing begins on January 29, Wyden and Smith’s proposed Tax Relief Act is at this point far from a foregone conclusion; it faces significant opposition from congressional leaders, chiefly on the right, and it might very well be amended beyond recognition, if it comes to fruition in any form at all. Sen. Chuck Schumer has embraced it, but Politico described Idaho Republican Sen. and Finance Committee leader Mike Crapo’s response as “lukewarm,” in a report that also quoted Crapo’s remark calling the bill a “starting point.”

However welcome the suggested child tax credit increase, the Tax Relief Act’s authors ultimately declined to enact small changes that could make a big difference: namely, eliminating the minimum income floor. Conversely, when it came to aiding business, lawmakers seem to have pulled out all possible stops. (It also might be worth pointing out that this isn’t the first time Wyden has made common cause with Republicans on major social policy, either. In 2011, he worked side-by-side with Paul Ryan to hammer out a plan to introduce more privatization and “competition” into Medicare.)

There’s also the matter of a remark from Representative Smith that appears in the official press release. Perhaps it’s a telling one. Smith touts that “the legislation locks in over $600 billion in proven pro-growth, pro-America tax policies.” And yet the expenditures on the child tax credit and other aspects only total a reported $78-80 million. It would seem that the far larger figure Smith alluded to is a calculation of the potential windfall that corporations are poised to rake in, in the form of the plan’s numerous tax breaks.

“They’re certainly not putting it into housing credits,” remarked King. CBPP President Sharon Parrott also wrote that “two of the corporate provisions feature timing gimmicks that hide their true cost well beyond their temporary nature.” Most damningly, an independent analysis by the center-right Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget appears to confirm that interpretation of Smith’s comment, estimating an ultimate cost of $525 billion in corporate tax breaks over the next decade. Small wonder that, as NPR noted, conservative pro-corporate lobbying group Business Roundtable released an immediate statement of support.

Again, we see that when the public is in need, the congressional response is to bicker over how many crumbs they really deserve; whereas when business calls, leaders are veritably falling over themselves in the scramble to see who can demonstrate the most extravagant largesse. We might at least hope that some modicum of help for the needy also comes out of it.

As Mary King concluded, “It’s a step in the right direction, but the federal government should be investing far more in children and young families. Other countries do it, and the result is that they have a more inclusive and prosperous economy — because it’s good in the short term, and it’s good in the long term. It will help kids in the future, and families need it now.”